[front] feature(vault): Add vault API

[tdraier]

fixes: https://github.com/dust-tt/dust/issues/6703

Description

Add endpoints described in https://github.com/dust-tt/dust/issues/6703 Postman collection to test : https://dust88.postman.co/workspace/Dust-Workspace~74ef36ac-0636-4a8f-bad9-0d7ff6c3a4d0/folder/31825760-3d267729-510a-482b-9c6c-42640d9ed4ea?action=share&source=copy-link&creator=35973216&ctx=documentation

Risk

New endpoints only

Deploy Plan

Deploy front

[github-actions[bot]]

	Fails
:no_entry_sign:	Files in **/models/ have been modified. Addition and deletion should be in 2 separate PRs: Addition: migrate and deploy Deletion: deploy and migrate Please add the migration-ack label to acknowledge that a migration will be needed once merged into 'main'.
:no_entry_sign:	Please include a detailed Deploy Plan section in your PR description.

Generated by :no_entry_sign: dangerJS against 9654d750dcb9f15305a66a3d99ea09a49aadce3c

[spolu]

For context: Since this is an internal API I don't strongly hold that belief. But I think we really don't want that for our public API. But then it makes me question it being a good idea for our internal API.

[tdraier]

As per my comment on the initial issue I am afraid that we will live to regret mixing data source and data source views under the same endpoint with a category concept.

Let's just be explicit here and have two different endpoint?

Yes for the data_sources/content endpoint it makes sense to have 2 different endpoints , the code will anyway be completely different (not because of the fact we have views/datasource, but because for connected datasource / unconnected datasources - for connected we always use a view, for files/folder we have a simple data source)